Non- and Un-contacless credit card

Roland_Sausage

I don't doubt that accidental payments could happen, however do you have any evidence to back up your claim that contactless cards have been hacked?

Gromitt

Fertilizer wrote: »

No - you're missing the point. You're assuming they stick to the rules that you know.

The rules are built into the card, you can't ignore them. A transaction of £40 simply wouldn't authorise. Likewise, too many contactless transactions get declined and you have to perform CnP to re-activate the contactless part.

Fertilizer wrote: »

Now you are beginning to sound like a bank - "not even your money". Oh, I supppose you just drop them an email and they hand the money back, do they ??

Pretty much, yes.

Fertilizer wrote: »

I think not. Why should I put up with huge amounts of hassle I don't need ??

What hassle? I assume you use chip and pin? Its no more secure.

Ever been dumpster diving? Its amazing what you find.

The only way of avoiding all the hassle is refuse having a card at all and asking for a pass book and hoping said book doesn't get stolen.

Fertilizer

As I said at the top, I only wanted replies from non-complacent people.

I gave 9 reasons for not wanting some card with contactless.
I will not reply to any more comments on theis thread

Byeee ...

Hominu

Fertilizer wrote: »

As I said at the top, I only wanted replies from non-complacent people.

Tough, this is an open forum. If your too paranoid to accept advice to the contrary then fine, refuse to accept contactless. Eventually you'll be left with little choice. Contactless is the future.

I've suffered fraud on my bank cards twice so far, and each time was due to CnP fraud (tracked down to a dodgy retailer). Never had any contactless fraud.

Buzby

This is like a rerun of the chip & Pin debate! Anyone refusing a Contactless card will quickly find themselves cardless. I have several, keep them together and no reader has managed to discriminate a valid code to debit against whether in a shop or bus.

In isolation, I might agree with your points, but the interference generated from multiple-powered cards is an addition to the consumer's security. I ended up getting rid of the RF envelopes as they were redundant.

bryanb

[QUOTE=Fertilizer)
I will not reply to any more comments on theis thread

Byeee ...[/QUOTE]


Bet you still read them!

Cycrow

if your this paranoid, how do you even leave the house

Jennifer_Jane

Well here's another thread which is getting childish.

Anyway, I was interested in Fertilizer's thread because of the stories I have heard about readers reading other cards in your wallet (and was heartened to hear that Buzby hasn't had problems, but this is countered by al69's experience.

The comparison with Chip & Pin is, IMHO, spurious, as that was an additional level of security. Contactless seems to be a lesser level of security than even the old signature requirement.

Is this so?

Who is this new system advantageous to? I can see that it is better for retailers who can get people through their tills faster (Aldi are the champions at this and they now have the readers, although unsure if they are currently working). Who else?

In retailing, the main stalling point at queues is packing goods, even in Aldi, who have designed their till points to be as consumer unfriendly and difficult as possible.

What I'd be happy to hear about is who this scheme is directed at or beneficial to.

JakeGreen

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

What I'd be happy to hear about is who this scheme is directed at or beneficial to.

Paying for small items: newspaper, snacks or fast food where a receipt isn't necessary.

You're holding the goods that you want in one hand, you flash your card on the reader and the transaction is complete in seconds and you're off on your way.

Yes it's definitely the way forward and I imagine all cards will have it as standard just like chip and pin.

Rafter

Jennifer,

Contactless payments are seen to be beneficial to both retailers and consumers because they reduce cost, time and fraud - despite one or two teething problems with London buses and M&S readers. As far as I'm aware these problems are with customers paying for their own bus journey or M&S goodies but with a card they weren't expecting not paying for someone elses goods.

The reason it is cheaper for everyone is the cost of cash. It costs money to print and distrubute cash to banks. It costs money for counter staff and ATMs to issue that money (including the fraud costs). It costs money when consumers have money stolen from them. It costs money to distribute change to retailers. It costs money for the retailer to secure cash - secure tills and safes. It costs money to count and process the cash and have it collected securely and returned to the bank.

Compare that to the cost of a contactless terminal with the money going from the customers account to the retailers account with no processing costs, counting, cash security and you can see why it is attractive.

Personally I can't wait to just pop out with my contactless phone or one card rather than a pocket full of change and know that I will have an electronic record of everything I spend. As far as fraud goes, once I have reported my card stolen I know I will get my money back and I don't think many thieves will risk a prison sentence for a few Mcdonalds, newspapers or small value items. Compare that to being mugged for the contents of my wallet or getting refunded if my wallet is stolen or lost and personally I think I will be better off as a result of contactless.

Totally understand that others like Fertilizer are going to need a lot more convincing, but unless I have a negative experience I won't be cutting my contactless cards up just yet!

R.